Share this

Sean Friendly (guest)
VA:

It is interesting who the pundits think the most important "voice" in the matter of DADT. Admiral Mullen, Senior Leaders in the Military, Military Analysts, College Professors.....I'd argue that the "front lines" for this issue is the Junior and Midgrade Service members. This is not as much a political issue as it is a military culture issue. We are the American's that have to accept this new paradigm. We've got to really understand the impacts. DADT = Don't ask me about who I'm attracted to, married to or have sex with. I can't talk about my sexual life, who I'm attracted to and who I want to marry. This could be an uncomfortable position to be in and I understand that these shouldn't be grounds for punishment. Repealing of DADT should be only as it applies to punishment for telling someone about your social preferences. It should not change the standards of conduct for a servicemember. The public needs to understand that we have on duty and off duty standards for our service members; both in terms of appearance and actions.
This will be a very tough implementation plan if it is allowed to be influenced by the extreme liberal public. It should ONLY apply to punishment for telling.
US Army Active Duty MAJOR

jim m (guest)
MO:

Yes, DADT should be thrown into the trash bin. In the last years non-combat military were discharged from the service. Linguists aren't going to be in the foxhole and showering afterwards with the other patriotic soldiers.

Todd Ellis (guest)
AR:

This is not an Arena debate because every arena I've visited in my life wasn't tipped to its left and being bolstered by liberal-minded colleagues. This website's debate proudly touts the "universal" acceptance of the scrapping of the DADT policy. However, all I see is Ive League and "professionals" from the northeast who are, of course, going to support any change to previously conservative policies!!
The professor from Georgetown made the only sensical comment when he chimed that the military leaders are the ones who need to be in the driver's seat with the political administrations playing an advisory role. To repeal or continue the policy in the reverse order is to remove the doctor from the surgery room.
P.S.- Fred Barbash....Try to get a more balanced Arena. The suits aren't always the most insightful.

Tim David (guest)
CA:

Now why is it such a burden for someone who is Gay to have to keep it to themselves and not advertise they are Gay?
Is it any harder for them then it is for a person who has some fetish he or she has that is not in the norm of the mainstream?
DADT is not all that limiting..Gays can be seen with their partners, they can socialize with their like minded Gays.
thay just cant flaunt it or become advocates or politcal about it, the Miltary needs cohesion and like mindedness, being a openly Gay person with all the politics and ideolgy that goes along with it can only breed disharmony and trouble.
Keep your sex lives to your selves no one cares!

Alex Zeller (guest)
NY:

It's too bad that we are debating how to be more PC in the millitary. Didn't being PC just get a number of good men and women killed at Ft Hood because doing the right thing, removing a bad soldier wasn't done. DADT shouldn't be up to the elected folks in Washington but those who serve. If they are ready to support openly gay people serving side by side then so be it. If more time is needed then we shouldn't force it upon them.

R J Ligier (guest)
TX:

It's truly amazing after fifty years of fraud perpetrated since the revision of the ALIMPC in 1955 based on the musings of the sadomasochistic borderline psychopath, Alfred Kinsey, that the military would be acquiescing towards the acceptance and collusion of the normalization of neurotic behavior and its associated paraphilias among its military personnel. Aside from the mutual discomfort among its heterosexual personnel, you actually expect them to openly trust neurotic individuals who at the core of their being manifest histrionic and passive-aggressive personality disorders. How many sexual assaults of the U S heterosexual military personnel by LGBT personnel are required to occur before the U S Supreme Court implements more sexual harassment law? Remember, it was 43 years before the U S Supreme Court responded to the repeated sexual assault of a social conservative in the private sector before the Oncale vs Sundowner Offshore Oil Services decision and even then Lambda Legal refused to acknowledge their responsibility by successfully piggybacking on the decision.

Douglas Knight (guest)
AR:

Have any of you ever served in the Military(any branch) & had experience with any of the cliques which exist therein? Have any of you had a fellow servicemember or superior who happened to be homosexual hit on you?
I've had both bad experiences happen more than a few times and all we need are openly gay servicemembers serving who will be able to claim discrimination any time they don't like the outcome of a proposition they've made or an order given.
One of the worst cases I came across was trying to clear TA-50 issue on Ft. Lewis, which seemed to be all Guamanian. I was 3 days into my leave prior to deployment to USAEUR. All the Guamanians were talking in their native tongue and refused to clear me even after I bought all new items from clothing sales. I had to threaten IG action in order to clear-yes MSG you know who you are. Say I'm racist or homophobe, but I'm a minority and have had homosexual friends as well.
Once when I tried to make an EEO complaint, I was told they(EEO) could help me if only I was black. I am Asian and AMERIND.

Patrick C (guest)
DC:

To a few of you who have expressed concerns over gay men and women making sexual advances to you. Do not worry. If you are a homophobic bigot, they probably will not be interested in you in the first place. Just because you cannot control your impulses, that does not mean everyone can't. It's time for you to grow up and realize that just as you probably can't help falling in love with a specific man or woman, neither can gay men or women. DADT should be scrapped immediately.

Luke Short (guest)
FL:

Why toy with national defense? The military is all about psychology - morale, discipline, unit cohesion, honor and bravery -- homosexuality flies in direct contravention of these traits.
Homosexuality was never determined to be sane through scientific studies or consensus within the psychological community -- the APA was cowed into removing it as a mental condition in 1973 through the terrorist actions of homosexual activists.
To this day, homosexuality brings with it a whole raft of mental conditions -- from anti-social psychoses, propensity for suicide and pederasty on several orders of magnitude above the normal population. Homosexuals are also overrepresented in violent crime to include serial murder.
Additionally, they are still the primary contracters and carriers of the HIV and AIDS viruses, as well as vastly overrepresented in many other STDs.
We need the best for our military, not diseased sexual deviants.

Luke Lea (guest)
TN:

As someone who has suffered sexual abuse and discrimination from homosexual men both as a child and as an adult, I oppose repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the U.S. military.

Bennett Yeilding (guest)
FL:

Bradley Blakeman is right on the point of this question. It should be the military leaders who will make this decesion and base it on what is best for the majority of service members. Anyone who has ever been in the military can tell you that the gay person is in a minority and a stigma is attached to whatever the situation he/she finds themselves in.Mr President, listen to your military leaders, don't dictate to them based on which group might have your ear at the present time. We are talking about our security, here and around the world. It is not a casual decision and shouldn't be made by special interest groups. Leave the policy alone and it will continue to benefit all concerned.

Steve Cash (guest)
IN:

Both are wrong --- Don't Ask Don't Tell and repealing the policy are both the wrong policy directions.
The DODT policy and the repealing of the policy are contemporary efforts to undermine the basic moral underpinings of our society. Our society needs a renewed heart-change.
How can we expect our military to serve as a beacon of hope, if there is no moral light guiding this country, it's people or it's military? We must embrace morality - not flee from it. Only then, will this country and it's military serve as a beacon of hope to other nations.
But "whose" morality? There can be one true and lasting answer and that is found in Jesus Christ.

WULF WESTON (guest)
NY:

Scrap it. The British Armed Forces integrated gay soldiers into their ranks successfully. Gay, black, ginger, straight, Welsh, English...all fight and die in Afghanistan the same...253 of them as of Feb. 2nd, 2010.
DADT destroys US military assets; it's like tackling your own teammates in football: not prudent. Several Arabic linguists were dismissed under DADT after 9/11 even while a paucity of such soldiers was being cited by the military as problematic. It cost several soldiers their careers; but, it may also have cost US lives. That's bad.

luke smith (guest)
NC:

The gays are in the military. Acknowledge it. If the Republicans buck this obvious direction, then i, an independent, will not support them in the midterms. This is childish to even be having this conversation.

mark hannawa (guest)
NC:

The Fabric of our society relies on the natural human make-up. How has man managed to subvert the laws of nature to the point that we are having this discussion. If all pieces on earth besides humans know their place in the natural evolutionary steps, then why is it that man and his advanced intelligence seem to digress when it comes to sexuality. To the normal heterosexual, there is a deep moral belief in how humans were meant to advance, and homosexuality is a degenerative issue to us. This belief will play out in our military where heterosexual people with strong beliefs will reject the idea of cohesion amongst gay and straight people. They simply will opt out of the military for the sake of their strong beliefs. Recruiting will become very difficult and will lead to shortages of military personnel required to defend this country. To sacrifice the many for the sake of the few is plain stupid. The very small minority of Gays have no right to force their sexual preferences on the majority. This is still a democracy where the majority votes for the betterment of this great nation. Just as all the polls show, the majority are opposed to queering of our schools, our military, our marital institutions, and simply, our way of life.

Robert Smith (guest)
GA:

It is Moot!Let me ask all of you a question; Has any of you ever served in the military?
If not, (which i assume is the majority of your responses) you have not lived and worked in the military during war and do not know actual data for an informed conclusion.
Have we as a society come to this? SO What!I served 20 years in Special Operations as an Airborne Ranger. Retired as a Ranger instructor at Ft Benning Ga. While serving we lived in close quarters together and did not give a dam about sexual orientation because if your gay you kept it to yourself, and Never hit upon your brothers, because if you reviled your gay too bad, you got the SH_T beat out of you! Plus it was a requirement for the individual to be transferred out of the unit and put out of the military anyway. "Don't ask tell!" Policy is still moot, they will still be put out of the military due to being a security clearance risk (by blackmail from subversive elements or enemies of the U.S.) and considered a threat to the welfare and moral of the military! No Gays in the military, it is not like the civilian world of choices and ability to quit at any time... your on duty 24/7 assigned as ordered, and no choices allowed!

Paul Cass (guest)
CA:

Can allowing gays to serve in the military - openly or not - affect unit cohesion? Of course it can. There have been incidents in which gay service personnel have been harassed, assaulted and even killed by men with whom they served - how can there be a more serious unit cohesion problem than that? The same is true of allowing racial minorities and women to serve. There have been and continue to be racial incidents in the military. There have been and continue to be sexual assaults by males against females in the military. All of these problems can be solved by excluding any but white heterosexual males from serving. But we as a nation have decided that the problems involved in racial and sexual integration of the military are not important enough to justify denying racial minorities and women the opportunity to serve. The same reasoning should apply to gays and lesbians, many of whom have already made outstanding contributions to our country's defense. Soldiers are asked to put aside their personal feelings and inclinations on a daily basis in order to perform duties that are deeply unpleasant or dangerous. Why is asking them to put aside sexual prejudice more unreasonable?

V Chuck Bice (guest)
NV:

As a Viet Nam Vet, I strongly disagree with the current trend to end the Don't
Ask, Don't Tell program. Is there going to be seperate housing for the gays/lesbians? I for one, don't want to be in the position of sleeping in a berthing compartment (or barricks for that matter) only six inches from a person who may/may not be thinking of making sexual advances towards me. Am I going to wake up one morning to the possibility of finding my pants down around my knees? If it is ok for gays to sleep next to me... then why draw the line there? Why not let women sleep next to me also? This whole thing with gays in the military is just the tip of the ice berg... My son, who is a decorated combat soldier, told me that if the dont ask dont tell policy is overturned, about half of his unit will ask for discharges. So my question then is: to support a few in a very questionable decision, are you willing to lose a majority of your forces?

Adam C (guest)
IL:

Regarding Mr. Blakeman's comment. I agree with him that the input and opinion of militray leaders is important. But I hope he'll head his own advice and implore members of his own party to do likewise, if military leaders and commanders report that there will be no material negative impact on the US military and readiness.

Derek Newby (guest)
IL:

Will the front page of this discussion include any experts that disagree with DADT? Just curious. I know its PC to back repealing DADT, but I think it only fair that both sides of the argument have equal space.
The majority- if not all- of the experts I see weighing in on the topic have little or no experience in the military, and therefore no first-hand experience with this issue. Where is the voice of practical experience? Having spent time on the front lines, I know that there are already quite a few gays in the Army, and it is usually known by most of the people in their units even if not spoken about openly. I for one believe that if DADT is repealed and it's more in the face of your average ground troop, it will be problematic. Is that due to prejudice and lack of knowledge? Of course. But that does not take away from the fact that it will have serious implications on the front lines, where there are situations like community showers and the like. I think with two wars going on there is already a huge strain on our military, and flipping a switch of this magnitude will put a far larger strain than necessary on the morale, and in some cases the welfare of our soldiers out there in harm's way.

Lee (MMBJack) McCarty (guest)
NV:

Some way education has been messed up. From a small High School in my hometown Minong, Wisconsin to my sophomore to senior at Proviso Township H.S. in Maywood Illinois (where I was a major letter wrestler on a State Championship team) I have had only positive experiences in the educational system including a superb Northeastern University Engineering School at the original small campus in Boston. Somehow, while arguments by the conservatives at the Arena stress how awful ending NCLB will be (oh how they love conformity which is the death of creativity) it is President Obama that will get beyond just ending it. I trust a natural transformation in our entire education system will follow at all levels once new demonstration projects are finally launched nationwide. Until ALL Americans have access to education that is not limited by local Real Estate which condemns poorer areas to the horrifying mess we see in today's American urban schools - an economic segregation. Teachers and faculty at all levels must together be motivated to excel in their area and local school boards must be freed of the "crazies" which Christian Fundamentalists seeking authoritarian Government and institutions (the "believers" dominating) against Science.

Lee (MMBJack) McCarty (guest)
NV:

When I served in the USN in the period between VE Day in Europe, and VJ Day in the Pacific - which ended World War II - I was in the victory parade down Michigan Avenue in Chicago, a thrill I shall never forget on a beautiful sunny day when "patriotism" was tangible and actual - just as real in the whole society in America when citizens were involved and all servicemen felt it as so. Following assignments at the Point Loma Radar School in San Diego I shipped out on the ELSM445 - an experimental radar ship based at Norfolk and later and until the day I turned 21 on the U.S.S. Okanogan APA 220 Attack Transport. I was recognized as the leading Radar Operator in the Attack transport fleet based at Norfolk. Our Captain was very tough on officers and crew alike. When President Truman ordered an end to racial discrimination in the Navy it was "bang" and suddenly blacks became a part of our crew integrated at all levels in sleeping quarters, mess hall, or wherever. I do not recall lasting gripes or altercations till the end of my "minority cruise" (a volunteer still 17 and discharged at age 21). Gays existed wherever I was assigned with "no fuss or muss". Patriotic & tolerance lived together. I am with Carl Levin. Enlightening resolves.

Talbot Nicklas (guest)
MD:

I find it amusing that everyone is jumping on board wanting gays in the military. Those who fight should decide whether or not gays should serve. Gays will be picked on and shunned; then people will be prosecuted. Gays have a genetic problem which should be fixed with drugs. As we get smarter about the brain, we will soon be able to isolate the faulty genes and fix them. This "love of gays" will be a small blip in the history of mankind. There is hope for all of you

Lee (MMBJack) McCarty (guest)
NV:

Some way education has been messed up. From a small High School in my hometown Minong, Wisconsin to my sophomore to senior at Proviso Township H.S. in Maywood Illinois (where I was a major letter wrestler on a State Championship team) I have had only positive experiences in the educational system including a superb Northeastern University Engineering School at the original small campus in Boston. Somehow, while arguments by the conservatives at the Arena stress how awful ending NCLB will be (oh how they love conformity which is the death of creativity) it is President Obama that will get beyond just ending it. I trust a natural transformation in our entire education system will follow at all levels once new demonstration projects are finally launched nationwide. Until ALL Americans have access to education that is not limited by local Real Estate which condemns poorer areas to the horrifying mess we see in today's American urban schools - an economic segregation. Teachers and faculty at all levels must together be motivated to excel in their area and local school boards must be freed of the "crazies" which Christian Fundamentalists seeking authoritarian Government and institutions (the "believers" dominating) against Science.

Lee (MMBJack) McCarty (guest)
NV:

When I served in the USN in the period between VE Day in Europe, and VJ Day in the Pacific - which ended World War II - I was in the victory parade down Michigan Avenue in Chicago, a thrill I shall never forget on a beautiful sunny day when "patriotism" was tangible and actual - just as real in the whole society in America when citizens were involved and all servicemen felt it as so. Following assignments at the Point Loma Radar School in San Diego I shipped out on the ELSM445 - an experimental radar ship based at Norfolk and later and until the day I turned 21 on the U.S.S. Okanogan APA 220 Attack Transport. I was recognized as the leading Radar Operator in the Attack transport fleet based at Norfolk. Our Captain was very tough on officers and crew alike. When President Truman ordered an end to racial discrimination in the Navy it was "bang" and suddenly blacks became a part of our crew integrated at all levels in sleeping quarters, mess hall, or wherever. I do not recall lasting gripes or altercations till the end of my "minority cruise" (a volunteer still 17 and discharged at age 21). Gays existed wherever I was assigned with "no fuss or muss". Patriotic & tolerance lived together. I am with Carl Levin. Enlightening resolves.

J R (guest)
FL:

I wonder how many of the "experts" who have offered their learned opinons on this subject have ever served in the military. To opine about the repeal of DADT's effects on unit cohesion, moral, good order and discipline when you have no idea what those things are is vain and smacks of elitism. I can tell you having lived a military life for many years that the vast majority of military members do not want LGBT folks serving openly in the military. Our housing, quarters and way's of doing bussiness do not support this change and making it WILL have an adverse effect on operations. Highly skilled people WILL leave the service over this and we WILL be worse off for it. Whether you elite in your ivory towers believe it or not the laws of unintended consequences do exist. The rest of us operate in a world where these consequences are real and often paid for with blood.

Phil Southern (guest)
AL:

"Unconditional Surrender" Jost makes a compelling case that it true at it's heart. The Federal government owns all. The rights we enjoy, the citizens, the property, the air we all breath all are at the whim of the Federal Government. "Unconditional Surrender" Jost knows just how to manage it all too, if we'd only listen to him.

Colin Soleim (guest)
NY:

The problem in my mind with trusting military leaders to do what they think is best with DADT, is that they have experienced a lifetime of anti-gay messages in the military so they are inherently biased. Sure they know best about how to control the military, but they have large biases when it comes to the sociology of the military and as a nation we cannot allow their biases to stop us from allowing a large qualified portion of the population from openly participating in the military. Don't ask don't tell was a short term fix that needs to be repealed now for the benefit of the military and of homosexuals.

Karl Knapstein (guest)
CO:

The stimulus bailed out local and state government, The banks, The automakers and the infra-construction bailed out mostly corporate builders. The guys and gals who wear the work shirts and jeans wait for the downward trickle of the resources, the 1/3 of our paychecks, (our energy) to help us out of this pathetic mess. Our productivity is setting records, we lead the world! Yet, alas, the suits and ties have learned to work the system for their own benifit (Greed is Good?). The new jobs program reeks of more of the same, another bail out for big business. We need the opportunity to start NEW business. My vision is, and has been, Solar power on every roof and a plug-in hybrid in every garage. How many jobs would that create? Energy Independance IS national security after all and as such should have a similar financial budget to say, Defense spending. If the Congress again follows the bribe money of Corporate America our only choice is to vote them ALL out. And, of course, BUY AMERICAN!!

Marge McCathern (guest)
TX:

I really don't see what the big deal is. No one asks college kids or bans them from attending because they're gay. We have oil rigs out in the gulf and they don't have a ban on gays. Are you afraid someone is going to see you in the shower or you'll have to bunk with them? Come on. It's time everyone worry about something bigger than this. We need to move on. The military is stretched so thin. We have stop loss. We need good people who want to serve and too many are disqualified because of our government acting stupidly. With the economy and job loss the way it is, the government appears to be hiring. Let them in the military. It's a wonderful life. Spouse of retired 30 year Veteran.

Bernie Freeman (guest)
WA:

As a ten year military veteran, having served in combat arms units, I believe this decision should be solely left up to the troops. They have to live with the life and death consequences of the decision. If the troops said scrap it, I would support that decision.
However, I still have many friends in the military who do not believe it's a good idea. If Sgt. X is gay and is carrying on an affair with Private Y how does that affect Sgt. X's decision making process when he needs to give orders? This is just one of many issues that needs to be considered to maintain the trust and bond you must have to lead and fight in combat. It's been said that up to 10% of the current troops polled would leave the military if it was scrapped.
Politicians need be very careful about making political decisions that could disrupt the effectiveness of our military.

John Mise (guest)
TX:

During an intense future war, and during past world wars, whole blood has been drawn from nearby soldiers and immediately transfused into wounded soldiers. Remember MASH scenes. Gay soldiers would have a higher likelehood of carrying the HIV virus and thus should not be used to donate whole blood. Thus the policy of not having gay soldiers.

Nick Haynes (guest)
MO:

As a veteran, I can say this issue is very complicated. On the one hand, most servicemembers are professional enough to do their job, understand that they already serve next to gays, and have no issue with it. On the other hand, there is a significant minority of servicemembers that would be opposed and unable to handle being in close quarters with a homosexual brother (or sister)-in arms.
That being said, the policy of not allowing gays to serve openly is discriminatory and should be ended with all possible swiftness.
Were I in charge, I would repeal DADT in all units and divisions not currently serving in combat, and all units and divisions that would not be assigned to a combat role of any sort for the next two years. While ending discrimination is important, we must realize that the first mission of the military is to protect our national interests, and there is a distinct chance that units will need time to be able to integrate to a level of cohesiveness that allows them to function at full capacity. While this kind of cohesiveness may not be important if you work a low-level administrative job at the Norfolk Naval Station, it is paramount when you face the risk of live combat.

Reuel Castillo (guest)
CA:

Any way you slice it, this policy makes no sense. Don't ask, Don't tell only serves a phobia of the closed minded. If a draft were instituted tomorrow, all elligable Americans would be recruited, gay and straight alike. There would be absolutely no way whatsoever to prevent draft cards from going to those who are gay, just as you couldn't prevent one from going to someone who is black, nor could you prevent one from going to a practicing Baptist. So if we would conscript a homosexuial, why on Earth would we not allow a gay man or woman to volunteer? There is nothing more patriotic than dedicating one's life to the service of their country. Are the gay people of America perhaps not American enough for the opponents of gays in the military? How is it fair that we expect a gay person to pay taxes, obey the law, and share their burdens of citizenship whatever they may be, but they aren't allowed to serve in the military openly? What makes a gay serviceman or woman any different from an openly practicing Scientologist?

Patrick Northway (guest)
IN:

You get a choice of two Brain Surgeons: One fresh out of residency who had a 1.6 GPA, can't read very well, and has eyesight issues. The other is gay. Which one do you pick and who's the idiot in this picture? Don't ask; don't tell; don't think...HELLO!!!!

Mark Rayome (guest)
CO:

Fred, It's not a question of their ability to serve. It's about individual trust. It's about deep, conflicting sexual lifestyles. It's about having the government mandating controversial policies using the military as a social springboard that contradicts cultural norms. The military is an organization that operates heavily on trust. To ignore that creates a sense of division. And this illness threatens lives, mission and National Security. A policy can't change how people intuitively feel. Gays may be fairly related to at arms length in the civilian world- because you have a choice. But not when you're sharing a foxhole and your life depends on it.
The book, "The Femanization of the American Military" draws similiar conclusions on why this policy isn't just foolish. It's stupid. Anything that undermines the bonds that members of the military require to function properly, based upon cultural values AND triumph over a deadly adversary, has been and must be the key element.
Fair? You treat losers of a war fair. Life isn't fair. But homosexuality is a choice- outside the undenyably violent vocation and demands towards protecting ones country and citizens.

Phil Gonzalez (guest)
TX:

"Don't ask, don't tell" should not be scrapped. As a vet I have seen firsthand gays in the military. Levin is dead wrong when he says this change will improve our military capability. There is no place in the military for PC. It grants certain privileges to one group over another. It's allows discipline to be broken. It allows for protocol to be broken. It destroys the chain of command by those who thinks we have something in common other then just wearing the uniform. It endangers the mission when the stress point is pushed because concern about one's gender takes precedence over the mission. The mission gets sidetrack because we have to take care that nothing happens to a certain person because of the numerous letters they write about "don't ask, don't tell" to their Senators like Levin. I remember my team having to fly back a mile from our mission because a certain person threw his gender to our faces claiming this is not what he signed up for. The pilot who knew of the "don't ask, don't tell" activist flew back. The element of surprise was lost. The next day at commanders call we were informed the captives lost their lives. We were informed it wasn't anyone's fault and a certain person sat their writing letters to his Senator.

A Sol (guest)
MD:

The answer is short and sweet, no. This is not a race nor religious issue, this is a sexual orientation issue. The US military SHOULD NOT be at the fore front of any sexual issues which lends legitimacy to a very small, yet squeaky, segment of the population. Every state that has allowed people to vote on gay marriage, the populace has voted against it which tells me that dispite all the polls, the majority is still not ready to accept this in any way shape or form.

fred patterson (guest)
VA:

The flaunting of one's sexuality should be prohibited. This would include don't ask, don't tell.
Also straights being the least bit aggressive about their sexuality would included. Asking someone for a date would be a form of aggressive behavior. How would one find a date? I don't know. But I would be angry and upset if a gay asked me for a date. I guess females are upset and angry over having to refuse such an offer for a date as well. So one is as bad as the other. Perhaps the confidence in someone that one wouldn't be turned in for asking for a date, but realizing that that is a risk is the turning point as to when a date should be asked for. Perhaps a leading question like "are you and I close enough to discuss sexual orientation?" would be proper before asking for a date. The responder to that question could easily say no, and that should be the extent of the encounter.

Chris Withheld (guest)
CO:

It is amazing how so many who do not understand this policy have such responses to it. The fact that this is not just a policy the homosexual community but on hetrosexuals as well is lost on you pundits.
What this policy says and does is this. It states that the military will not ask ones sexual preferance. It will hold an individuals conduct to a standard. A standard covered by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
In other words if you are an adulturer or flamboyant, your conduct as a mamber of the military is what will be charged. If said conduct and behavior is contrary to good moral and discipline then you as an individual will be held accountable.
The spin that says hetrosexuals are not held to any standard is false. The punitive articles of the UCMJ are very specific on ones conduct of behavior and accountability.
The don't ask , don't tell policy should be hailed by those who are appoased to the military and are pushing a homosexual agenda as it levels the playing field, and makes punishment equal for all in uniform.

Scott Harris (guest)
TN:

I think the answer to this question depends on 1) how you view the military and how you prioritize its mission and 2) how members of the military view homosexuality.
Unlike other institutions, the military is a unique organization whose sole purpose is to deter aggression against or defend the nation. It is by nature a highly discriminatory organization - overweight people, persons with physical disabilities, sight problems, hearing problems, criminal backgrounds, and so forth - are not allowed in the military. In short, the military is not like the post office. It requires persons who can fit and work within a highly specialized team. If the knowledge that a fellow soldier is gay causes interference and disruption within the team, that's a problem. On a mass scale, it's a much bigger problem. Successful deterrence and defense are the military's sole priorities.
Second, what does the military itself think? I don't know the answer to this question. If it is overwhelmingly unpopular, careful thought should be given. Desegregation, in my mind, was not nearly as universally controversial in 1948 as this is today because for many people this is religiously driven as opposed to a culturally driven issue.

Tom Morehead (guest)
NH:

No matter what side of this argument you come down on; this is not the time to put another stressor on the force. The force is at a snapping point now and to conduct sociological experiments to appease 10% of the poplulation and the "highly educated" is just absurd. Spend 20 years in a Rifle Battalion ask them what they think about this. There are 2nd order of effects not seen at this time and once you open the box and let it out there is no putting it back. Think about the 90% you are forcing this on.

Lee O (guest)
CO:

Could Arena contributors state whether or not they served in the military before answering the question? As for myself - I am a veteran. Yes, I served with gay men and women. No, I couldn't have cared less one way or the other. My only concern is more PC "BS" like we saw at Ft. Hood. Will supervisors be too afraid to discipline gay service members because they are wary of backlash from special interest groups? BET ON IT. How many different standards do we need? One for the straight servicemen... one for females... one for the gay servicemen... one for the Muslim servicemen... THAT is what veterans mean when they talk about unit cohesion.

Jason H (guest)
FL:

In the end, this ban is about prejudice. The prejudice of people who are uncomfortable with another person simply because they are different. I had an epiphany John McCain's first comment about the State of the Union speech was his objection to homosexuals in the military because it would impair our fighting force. We already have homosexuals serving in the military. They are fine men and women serving to protect me and my family.
The issue is that their orientation is kept a secret and that some people may be less able to fight effectively because they now know their fellow soldier is gay. John McCain wants to protect the bigots serving in our arms forces.
So why do we protect the bigot? The real issue is having people fighting in the name of my country and my constitution but do not believe in either!

Michael Twokay (guest)
CA:

When homosexuals are allowed to serve openly in the military, will men and women also then share berthing and head facilities? If not, why not?

More POLITICO Arena

About the Arena

The Arena is a cross-party, cross-discipline forum for intelligent and lively conversation about political and policy issues. Contributors have been selected by POLITICO staff and editors. David Mark, Arena's moderator, is a Senior Editor at POLITICO. Each morning, POLITICO sends a question based on that day's news to all contributors.